Agricultural landscapes:33 years of change
2005
Helping everyone to respect, protect and enjoy the countryside
1994
1983
1972
The map extracts used within this publication are reproduced from OrdnanceSurvey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of theController of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorisedreproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civilproceedings.The Countryside Agency, John Dower House, Crescent Place, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 3RA© The Countryside Agency 2006 Licence No. 100018881
The Countryside AgencyThe Countryside Agency is the statutory body working to make the
quality of life better for people in the countryside and the quality of the
countryside better for everyone. It is a non-departmental body sponsored
by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
The Agency is changing as the result of Defra’s Rural Strategy 2004
and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, which gained
Royal assent in March 2006.The new Act sets out the creation of:
• Natural England – a single new body that will integrate the
Landscape, Access and Recreation division of the Countryside Agency
with English Nature and most of Defra’s Rural Development Service
(RDS). Natural England will work for people, places and nature,
with responsibility for enhancing biodiversity, landscapes and
wildlife in rural, urban, coastal and marine areas; promoting access,
recreation and public well-being; and contributing to the way
natural resources are managed – so that they can be enjoyed now
and by future generations.
• Commission for Rural Communities – a single body that will act as a
rural advocate, expert adviser and independent watchdog, with a
particular focus on disadvantage. Currently operating as a division
of the Countryside Agency, the Commission will become an
independent body.
These changes will come into effect in October 2006, at which
point the Countryside Agency will cease to exist.
We may be changing, but our skills, knowledge and enthusiasm will
continue to benefit people in rural England. To find out more about
our work, and for information about the countryside, visit our website:
www.countryside.gov.uk
AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank the many farmers who have co-operated with
them in the course of the 33 years of this study, often giving up time to
speak to them at particularly busy periods; the professional colleagues
who have assisted with various aspects of the study over the years; also
the various members of the Countryside Commission (now Countryside
Agency) involved at different times, in particular on this occasion
advisers from the Future Landscapes, Land Management and Library
Services teams.The Countryside Agency would also like to thank the
Rural Development Service and English Nature for their contribution.
All photographs © Countryside Agency/Tom Worthington and Richard
Westmacott.
Front cover: Leighton Bromswold, Huntingdonshire
Report of a study undertaken during 2005 on behalf
of the Countryside Agency’s Landscape, Access and
Recreation Division, by Richard Westmacott BSc, MLA,
and Tom Worthington BSc Hons Agric Sci of Reading
Agricultural Consultants.
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the
consultants.
Distributed by:
Countryside Agency Publications
PO Box 125
Wetherby
West Yorkshire LS23 7EP
Telephone: 0870 120 6466
Fax: 0870 120 6467
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.countryside.gov.uk
Minicom: 0870 120 7405 (for the hard of hearing)
© Countryside Agency
July 2006
Agricultural landscapes:33 years of change
Agricultural landscapes: 33 years of change
2
Foreword
This is the fourth study to look at the changes that have occurred in
England’s lowland landscapes. First carried out in 1972, and repeated in
1983 and 1994, the New Agricultural Landscapes work gives a unique
insight into the visual effects of changes in farming methods and
agricultural policies over a third of a century.
The farmed landscape has seen fundamental changes during the
course of this study, due to greater labour efficiency, mechanisation and
specialisation.The then Countryside Commission believed that the first
report revealed ‘deeply disturbing facts about the nature and scale of
changes taking place in the appearance of much of the English
countryside’. Later studies, however, have shown that the pace of
change has slowed and this latest report suggests that the lowlands
seem to be experiencing greater stability. I was particularly delighted to
note that the quality and size of many hedgerows have improved and
that the widespread removal of this distinctive feature of the English
landscape has all but ceased.
There are, though, a number of potential changes on the horizon
associated with anticipated changes in land management, particularly in
upland areas into which this study will need to extend in the future.
This publication therefore presents us with an invaluable visual record
of the lowland landscape in the first decade of the 21st century, against
which future changes can be compared. It also provides an important
part of the legacy of the Countryside Agency (and of the Countryside
Commission) which will now be carried forward by Natural England.
I look forward to reading the 2016 report!
Dr Stuart Burgess
Chairman
The Countryside Agency
July 2006
3
Contents
Foreword 2
Introduction 4
Agriculture and the environment 1972–2005 8
Reports on the study areas 13
Cambridgeshire – Prickwillow 13
Huntingdonshire – Leighton Bromswold 23
Dorset – Piddlehinton 32
Somerset – Crewkerne 41
Herefordshire – Preston on Wye 50
Yorkshire – Myton on Swale 63
Warwickshire – Grandborough 75
Appraisal 86
Changes 86
Hedgerows and dykes 87
Trees 94
Buildings 97
33 years reviewed 102
Overview 109
References 112
Agricultural landscapes: 33 years of change
4
This is the fourth report of a study which was initiated in 1971, when
the Countryside Commission asked the authors to study the impact of
modern farming methods on the countryside.The brief for the study
was to find out ‘how agricultural improvement can be carried out efficiently but in
such a way as to create new landscapes no less interesting than those destroyed in the
process’. The fieldwork for the study was carried out in 1972, with seven
study areas being chosen ‘as broadly representative of different physiographic regions
and farming systems throughout lowland England and Wales’. The characteristics of
the study areas were as set out in Table 1 and their locations indicated
in Fig. 1.
In that first study the following surveys were carried out:
• All farmers in the study area were questioned as to the changes they
had made and planned to make to the landscape; the reasons for
these; the landscape maintenance work they carried out; their
attitude to landscape conservation and enforcement of landscape
maintenance conditions; their attitude to game; and their attitude to
countryside access and to planning restrictions;
• a visual survey of the landscape using Tandy’s Isovist technique.This
identified the landscape elements (eg. buildings, trees, hedges,
Introduction
Table 1: Characteristics of the study areas
County Area Farming Type Soil Type Landscape Character
Cambridgeshire Prickwillow Intensive arable (vegetables, Fen peat on clay Flat1,750 acres rootcrops, cereals) Cover – almost none
Huntingdonshire Leighton-Bromswold Extensive arable Boulder clay Rolling4,982 acres (cereals) Cover – sparse
Dorset Piddlehinton Extensive arable (cereals), dairying Chalk Downland4,415 acres and mixed Cover – sparse
Somerset Crewkerne Dairying Mixed greensand, gault Rolling1,661 acres clay and chalk Cover – good distribution
Herefordshire Preston on Wye Mixed Loam Rolling3,136 acres Cover – good distribution
Yorkshire Myton on Swale General cropping Sandy/silty loam, some Flat – slightly rolling2,561 acres subject to blowing Cover – moderate
Warwickshire Grandborough Livestock rearing, dairying and mixed Clay Flat2,053 acres Cover – good distribution
5
woodland) forming the horizon within a distance of one mile from
the observation point, and of horizons more distant than one mile,
and calculated them as a proportion of the 360˚ of view;
• individual trees were mapped by species, age and condition, and
their frequencies in different boundary types (eg. parish, farm,
roadside) were calculated;
• hedges were mapped and evaluated subjectively for visual
importance and habitat value;
• wildlife habitats were identified and assessed subjectively for their
extent, condition, value, management and potential value.
The report of the study, New Agricultural Landscapes1, (hereinafter referred to
as NAL72) was published in 1974 and, in addition to the factual
findings of the surveys identified above, included discussion of the
various components of the lowland agricultural landscape; discussion of
farmers’ motives in making changes to, and managing and conserving,
landscapes; made predictions of possible future changes in the
landscapes of every study area; and also set out suggested policies for
landscape improvement within each.The Countryside Commission was
sufficiently concerned by the findings of the report that it published a
Figure 1: Locations of study areas.
Agricultural landscapes: 33 years of change
6
consultation paper setting out ‘provisional proposals for dealing with the problems
caused by the impact of modern farming on the landscape’. Subsequently the
Commission set up two major initiatives, the ‘Demonstration Farms’
and ‘New Agricultural Landscapes’ projects, both seeking to influence
farmed landscape development.
The study areas were revisited at 11-year intervals following the
initial 1972 study, the landscape again being analysed along similar
lines, and some reduced level of survey work being carried out among
the farmers. Reports of these further two studies were published as
Agricultural Landscapes:A Second Look2 and Agricultural Landscapes:A Third Look3
(hereinafter referred to as NAL83 and NAL94 respectively).
The current study continues this 11-year sequence with an initial,
fourth look at the same seven areas. It takes a different approach from
the previous studies, as the full original 1970’s methodology, whilst
pioneering and repeatable, is not consistent with modern survey
techniques. Instead, the study is being undertaken in two stages:
1) A repeat of the photographic survey, from the same viewpoints,
of virtually all previously-taken photographs, to provide a direct visual
comparison of the landscapes which can be traced back over the
decades. It provides what may be a unique record of landscape change
in the ordinary farmed countryside over a third of a century, and forms
the basis of the current report. No contact (other than accidental
during the course of the work) has been made with the farmers at this
stage, nor has a landscape survey encompassing the elements of the
earlier studies been undertaken.
However, the current work does seek to identify, by means of a
selection of the photographs taken over the period, the obvious changes
that have taken place in each study area both since 1994 and 1972,
with commentary on the possible reasons for these. The changes that
have been recognised are not definitive records of all those that have, in
fact, occurred in each area. Some will have gone un-observed, due to
lack of visibility from the various viewpoints. This applies to both
removals and additions: for example a low hedge may have been
removed but its removal not noticed; equally, a new hedge may have
been planted but may have been shielded from view by the crop in
front of it. Some of the commentary as to the causes of change is
necessarily speculative. This first stage of the repeated study is the focus
of this report.
2) A second and separate piece of work will be carried out,
surveying a selection of the original seven lowland case study areas and
establishing a robust repeatable methodology, according with modern
survey techniques. It will retain a core of information that allows
comparison as far as possible with earlier reports, but will also draw on
modern data sources.This will help to establish a new baseline of
information, which will take an integrated approach considering
landscape, biodiversity, farmers’ views, the impact of agri-environment
7
schemes and the wider context of the areas, and also consider upland
areas. The results will be documented in a complementary NAL report
due in 2007.
In the current report, the old county names have been used despite
the reorganisation of county boundaries in the interim, for consistency
with previous reports in the series. The conclusions and
recommendations reached are those of the authors, and should not be
assumed to represent Countryside Agency views.
Agricultural landscapes: 33 years of change
8
Agriculture and the environment1972–2005
During the 33 years of this study, we have seen major changes in the
Government’s view of the balance to be struck between agriculture on
the one hand and all the varied environmental concerns on the other.
We do not attempt in any systematic way to summarise how these
views have been reflected in policy but we do identify a few of the
main changes.
When this study commenced in the 1970s government policy was
still to encourage maximum agricultural production, as expressed in
the1975 White Paper: Cmnd 6020 ‘Food From Our Own Resources’4. There was
still a government advisory service – the Agricultural Development and
Advisory Service – dedicated to this aim. Although there were many
critics of the way in which agricultural priorities were affecting the
landscape – by definition adversely – farmers could generally justify the
removals of hedges and trees and the building of large modern
buildings by sound economic arguments. Since they owned the land,
the rest of the community had to accept these changes with no right of
sanction.
Prior to the commissioning of NAL72, two books pertinent to its
aims were published: Jon Weller’s Modern Agriculture and Rural Planning5 and
Victor Bonham-Carter’s The Survival of the English Countryside6. Weller
supported the Government’s aim to maximize agricultural production,
and proposed that we should aim to become a food-exporting nation.
He saw change as essential and hedgerow removal as necessary, but did
warn that ‘tomorrow will be too late in knowing whether nature has been unbalanced’
(p.245). In contrast Bonham-Carter was ‘bewildered and disturbed by the radical
changes that seem rapidly to be destroying the countryside’ (p.13) and took issue
with Weller’s goal to increase agricultural production.
The references cited in NAL72 identify that there was a degree of
concern at that time in relation to the impact of agriculture on both the
landscape in general and wildlife in particular. The visual impact of
modern farm buildings was also of concern and conferences had been
held which sought to reconcile the obvious conflicts between intensive
9
agriculture and wildlife. Publications by the staff of the Nature
Conservancy Council quantified the enormous decline in the area and
number of the nation’s semi-natural habitats.
Following the publication of the first New Agricultural Landscapes study,
Jon Tinker wrote the lead article in New Scientist entitled The End of England’s
Landscape7.
In the early 1980s popular opinion was stimulated by the
publication of books which attacked the priority given to agricultural
production, from several points of view. Marion Shoard’s book, The Theft
of the Countryside8, made a broadly-based argument that agriculture was
damaging our heritage of landscape and wildlife without let or
hindrance and indeed with official encouragement via government
subsidies.
Richard Body’s 1982 book,Agriculture:The Triumph and the Shame9, was
especially notable in that the author was both a farmer and an MP. He
attacked the current system of subsidies for farming on the basis that it
was a bad waste of taxpayers’ money, did not stop large numbers of
small farmers having to leave the industry, and produced high-cost food
which was dumped on world markets, thus harming the agricultural
economies of developing nations and creating poverty for millions of
their citizens.
In 1983 Agriculture, The Countryside and Land Use by Bowers and
Cheshire10, both agricultural economists, was published. Like Richard
Body they found fault with the current policies for agriculture, and
particularly farm subsidies. ‘Subsidies have brought about conflict in the countryside,
damage to the landscape and wildlife, and even serious environmental pollution. Agricultural
policy has persistently encouraged more intensive farming techniques and the maximum
production of high-cost food for expensive mountains of European surplus’. These
academics stated that the interests of other users of the countryside ‘have
at best been regarded as irrelevant and have generally been treated with contempt’. They
illustrated the effects of agricultural changes by reference to a study area
in west Berkshire, where they documented the loss of hedges, ancient
woodland and ponds, and identified the gentrification of the
countryside.They argued that all of these losses of countryside
attributes could be laid at the door of agricultural policies and the
associated grants and subsidies.
In 1983 Granada Television produced the film Harvest Gold11, which
demonstrated both landscape changes and farmer-attitudes that could
be thought of as ‘typical’ or ‘extremist’, depending on the viewer’s own
prejudices.
In 1984 Richard Body produced his second book, Farming in the
Clouds12, developing the themes first set out in his earlier book. He
identified recent adverse changes in the landscape and the wider
environment, including wildlife, in the Pang Valley of Berkshire where
he and his wife farmed. He made it abundantly clear that he did not
blame farmers themselves for the changes that were occurring, but
Agricultural landscapes: 33 years of change
10
blamed the policies which encouraged the farmers to make them. He
continued to link these agricultural changes with adverse economic
impacts on UK consumers and third-world countries alike.
Possibly in an acknowledgement of the nature of the problem, the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) scheme was introduced by the
Agriculture Act 198613. This provided that farmers could be paid for
carrying out appropriate management of certain key features and
habitats, varying from single features such as walls and hedges to large
extents of farmed land.This scheme only applied to certain designated
areas, not the whole countryside. Participation was entirely voluntary
and operated by way of 10-year agreements with a 5-year break clause
with the participating farmers.
This was supplemented in 1991 by the Countryside Stewardship
scheme which brought environmentally-focussed payments to key
habitats and features outside of the ESAs. Priority land types and
landscape features were agreed for each county and then appropriate
management methods and levels of payment were fixed. Again,
participation was voluntary and the scheme operated through 10-year
agreements.
In 2005 the former policies which tied grants and subsidies to
production, encouraging farmers to aim for maximum yields and
livestock numbers, have radically changed.The new Single Payment
Scheme removes this linkage, making payments related to the area of
land farmed.This is complemented by the Environmental Stewardship
scheme, also introduced in 2005, which includes Entry Level
Stewardship, a broad and shallow scheme that pays for a basic level of
maintenance of landscape and other environmental features. It is
anticipated that the majority of farmland will have been entered into
Entry Level Stewardship by 2007.
Thus public funding, which at the start of this study series
encouraged production and almost always led to a reduction of one or
more environmental qualities, has now significantly changed in its
approach and is more focused on encouraging farmers to undertake
environmental management works.
It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the rate of loss of valued
landscape features and wildlife habitats which resulted from former
policies and their associated grant structure will at least slow
significantly, or possibly result in some significant degree of recovery.
As the new Single Payment Scheme had only just been introduced at
the time of writing its impacts on different farming sectors and
landscape types is as yet unknown, though concern has been expressed
that it could have adverse impacts on the landscape – see the Appraisal
section of this report. In addition, while Environmental Stewardship is
likely to have a positive influence on the landscape, the scale of its
impact remains to be seen.There is a risk that uptake, and therefore
impacts, of the scheme could be limited, for example by a restricted
11
budget and due to disillusionment with government schemes among
some of the farming community as a result of delays to Single
Payments.
While the whole policy, grant and subsidy structure has radically
changed, so has the farming industry, and there will inevitably be
effects on landscape management as a consequence. It is almost
impossible to give clear statistics of the changes due to varying methods
of collection and interpretation over the years. However, the main
practical changes that have taken place have been considerable
reductions in the number of commercial farms and farmers, and in the
number of employed workers; a large reduction in dairy cow numbers
since 1980; and a large increase in sheep numbers.
The reduction in labour availability has been accompanied by fairly
dramatic increases in the rates of work achievable with more powerful
and larger machines.Thus the average rate of ploughing suggested by
John Nix in Wye College’s Farm Management Pocketbook14,15 was about
2ha/day in 1970, but 6ha/day in 2005; fertiliser spreading –
12.5ha/day in 1970 and 30ha/day in 2005: sugar beet harvesting –
0.75ha/day in 1970, 3.5ha/day in 2005.
In addition, and as already indicated above, farmers have moved
from a system of deficiency payments (intended to supplement the
prices obtained from the market), through payments based on acreages
of certain crops grown and number of livestock kept, to today’s system
of payment which will ultimately reward only those land management
practices which are not considered detrimental to the environment.
Perhaps the most important change has been in relative income.
Indexing the average UK Farming Income as 100 over the period 1950-
59, and using Real Terms, it peaked at 138 in 1973, declined to a low
of 34 in the late 1980s, rose to a high of 91 in 1995 and has declined
to only 10 in 2000 before rising again to a provisional 34 in 2003 [J
Nix, loc cit]. Different sectors have varied widely within this overall
index, but the industry as a whole has clearly suffered from a very
significant decline in relative and absolute profitability since the start of
this study.
Again, it is reasonable to assume that these changes in farming
structure and incomes will have some impact on the landscape, for it is
the farmers, very largely, who maintain that landscape. It is worth
recalling that at the outset of this study series it was possible to take
photographs of corn stacks awaiting threshing (Fig. 2); a large
commercial farm close to the Cambridgeshire study area still used
significant numbers of horses for everyday cultivation; small farmers
with intensive arable and vegetable production could make a living
from as little as 30-40 acres of land; hand-hoeing of sugar beet was still
widespread in the fens; and potatoes were still quite commonly
harvested by hand.The contrast between that time and the current
highly mechanised farming is enormous.
Agricultural landscapes: 33 years of change
12
So far as landscape maintenance tasks are concerned, there often
simply isn’t the labour available to do the hedge cutting or ditch
cleaning that used to occupy the winter months when fieldwork was
not possible; or to manage the woodlands or rebuild stone walls. Such
work now often has to be bought in from contractors, who will, where
appropriate, be using large, high capacity, specialist machines, and
represents an added expense for farming businesses that may be near
the margin of profitability.
As well as the changes that can be attributed to the changes in
policies and grants, and to the changing structure of the farming
industry itself, it is inevitable that the passing of the years produces
change in the landscape – trees grow or are harvested or die, buildings
are constructed or outlive their useful life, farming systems change
from grass-based to arable or vice versa, farms change hands and the
new occupier has different priorities.
While changes may be noticed by those living in the
neighbourhood or with a special interest in the landscape, there are
relatively few detailed records of the changes themselves over a period
of years, and especially a period of one third of a century.The following
chapters set out the major changes seen in the seven study areas covered
in this project, with commentary on the nature of the changes
themselves and some discussion of possible reasons for change.
Once again it must be stressed that, because no farmers were
interviewed at this stage of the NAL05 work, some of the suggested
reasons for change may well be incorrect, and some physical changes
will have gone un-noticed. Nevertheless it is hoped that facts shown by
the photographs themselves will be of interest to those who study
landscape change, from whatever motivation.
Figure 2: Corn stacks awaiting threshing
could still be seen in the
Cambridgeshire fens in 1972 and, on
this farm, horses continued in use for
everyday cultivation.